Talk:Conrad Gargett
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Going nowhere
[edit]This article is not improving much. We don't really want lists of things. We want proper prose explaining things clearly. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Rather than these lists of buildings, perhaps it would be better to discuss the more significant ones and explain why they are significant (or why they won an award). Was something particularly innovative about that building? Was some significant challenge overcome in some interesting way? And of course we do need some citations. Kerry (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Going somewhere, but needs some more work, as per above
[edit]This discussion has been moved from User talk:Rangasyd by Rangasyd (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Great work! But, just responding to your recent edit summary ... Notability only applies to the subject of the article, which is the architectural practice which is clearly notable. Notability doesn't apply to content within the article, just relevance to the subject and the normal expectation to be able to provide a citation for what you say. Generally these kind of articles use the heading "Significant works" rather than "notable works" (which avoids the suggestion that the individual works listed should pass Wikipedia's notability test). I don't really think the list reads like an advertisement; it's quite factual with most entries already well-supported by links and citations. There's no gushing prose here which is characteristic of an advertisement. Kerry (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm OK to remove tag and change section header, if you wish. I just thought that, when compared to say Woods Bagot, the list appears over the top, especially the more recent projects. A significant work every say, five years, that has won either an Australian national or international award is appropriate, as opposed to every project that Conrad Gargett has worked on, which appears to be the case at present. Rangasyd (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Admittedly, the list does need some improvement as some of the work looks like redevelopments or restorations rather than original construction (because I know the building is much older) and it would be better if that was made clear. For example, they definitely didn't build the Blackall Woolscour in 2003 (which is from the 1800s and heritage-listed and hence on my to-do list for an article), so it is probably restoration work or building some kind of exhibition facility around it, but that isn't explained). But I am presuming that explanation and citations probably can be found for those entries. As for Woods Bagot, well, I guess WP:OTHER applies. I'd have no objection to a longer list of works there if there are citations to support them. Kerry (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- My efforts were focused on consolidation, more than reviewing content. I removed what appeared to me to be a long list of non-notable awards. I have not had the opportunity to review the firm's involvement in each project. Perhaps that is the next step. The section definitely needs additional citations and content. For example, in the upper section of the article it refers to the firm's first major project (fire station) as being award winning - however, there is no award in the list; etc. I'm going to relocate this discussion to the article talk page. Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I probably should have started the discussion (t)here. Kerry (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a lot of citations to the Queensland Heritage Register and some to the Brisbane Heritage Register. I saw a couple of mentions of local heritage places for which I could not find a heritage listing, e.g. Churchie. Kerry (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I probably should have started the discussion (t)here. Kerry (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- My efforts were focused on consolidation, more than reviewing content. I removed what appeared to me to be a long list of non-notable awards. I have not had the opportunity to review the firm's involvement in each project. Perhaps that is the next step. The section definitely needs additional citations and content. For example, in the upper section of the article it refers to the firm's first major project (fire station) as being award winning - however, there is no award in the list; etc. I'm going to relocate this discussion to the article talk page. Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Admittedly, the list does need some improvement as some of the work looks like redevelopments or restorations rather than original construction (because I know the building is much older) and it would be better if that was made clear. For example, they definitely didn't build the Blackall Woolscour in 2003 (which is from the 1800s and heritage-listed and hence on my to-do list for an article), so it is probably restoration work or building some kind of exhibition facility around it, but that isn't explained). But I am presuming that explanation and citations probably can be found for those entries. As for Woods Bagot, well, I guess WP:OTHER applies. I'd have no objection to a longer list of works there if there are citations to support them. Kerry (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm OK to remove tag and change section header, if you wish. I just thought that, when compared to say Woods Bagot, the list appears over the top, especially the more recent projects. A significant work every say, five years, that has won either an Australian national or international award is appropriate, as opposed to every project that Conrad Gargett has worked on, which appears to be the case at present. Rangasyd (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Conrad Gargett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528062943/https://heritage-register.ehp.qld.gov.au/basicSearch.html to https://heritage-register.ehp.qld.gov.au/basicSearch.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)